tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post1157183506373473238..comments2024-01-25T00:50:10.679-05:00Comments on Thoughts from a Sandwich: A Redundant Post on Absolute vs. Relative MoralityDagoodShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-25675049059401664972009-10-20T07:30:37.918-04:002009-10-20T07:30:37.918-04:00watever the opinions may be ..i enjoyed reading it...watever the opinions may be ..i enjoyed reading it :)swethanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-17103453631662876042009-04-04T23:09:00.000-04:002009-04-04T23:09:00.000-04:00What about Mary? Was she raped? Or was it child mo...What about Mary? Was she raped? Or was it child molestation?Reason's Whorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09386477323714963087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-22805156949782851462009-03-08T16:39:00.000-04:002009-03-08T16:39:00.000-04:00Sam,I prefer the color analogy to ice cream, as pr...Sam,<BR/><BR/>I prefer the color analogy to ice cream, as preference to ice cream is more capricious, but for the reasons you are concerned, it makes no difference.<BR/><BR/>You are correct that the colors being seen are the same, regardless of how a culture categorizes them. We see the same hue and shade (assuming all of our monitors are calibrated exactly the same) and one culture says “The iPod is light” another says “The iPod is light red” and another says “The iPod is pink.” Same facts perceived; different interpretation.<BR/><BR/>But are ice cream and morals that different? We taste the same mixed ratio of cream, eggs, sugar and vanilla with one person interpreting as “I like the flavor” and another saying “I do not.” We see the same action with one group interpreting the action as moral; another non-moral and another immoral. Same facts perceived (whether it is color, ice cream or action); different interpretations (different color, different preference, different moral interpretation.)<BR/><BR/>You used an example of rape. Let’s run with it. We can take the same action and come up with a variety of interpretations, <I>regardless</I> whether you are an objective or subjective moralist. (I will use your terms through this response.)<BR/><BR/>I have sexual intercourse with a 16-year-old. We can all agree with what that act entails. I don’t need to be more descriptive, thank you. But is that act “rape”? (We automatically associate “rape” with immorality.) Just like we see the same hue and shade—but may not all agree it is a separate color, as compared to a shade of a color.<BR/><BR/>In some states (mine, for example), 16 is the age of consent, so if there was consent—this would not be rape. In other states, 18 is the age of consent, so this would be statutory rape, regardless of consent. In some states if it was with a male, it would be considered rape (depending on age, even) on others it would be not.<BR/><BR/>Even forced sex is not the easiest answer. What if I am in a country where fathers order daughters to marry? She may not want to have sex with me, but “consents” through cultural coercion. Does that remove it from rape? Or take the Christian problem with Numbers 31. There we have the Hebrews forcing 32,000 virgin Midianites to marry them (or die) and have sex. Was that rape? <BR/><BR/>You are left with an objective standard where you must constantly find possible exceptions where what I would consider rape—you must not. Curious.<BR/><BR/>Same color? Same recipe? Same action? Very different interpretations. The analogy (in my opinion, which is not a surprise, since I made it) holds.<BR/><BR/><B>Sam: </B> <I>Well, of course anybody can push their own sense of morality on somebody else. But in the absense of objective moral values, it is not rationally correct to do so. </I><BR/><BR/>Wrong. Look, if you want to discuss with relativists…er…sorry…subjective moralists, you need to understand this point. You are correct in one sense that if morals are defined along the terms an objectivist states, then a subjectivist cannot rationally impose their morals on others.<BR/><BR/><B>But we do not define morals the same way!</B> If you force your definition as to what is morality, then any alternative view will not be rationally in line with your own. However, their own enforcement of morality MAY be in line with their definition of morality.<BR/><BR/>Maybe I was too subtle with my point—objectivists and subjectivist disagree at a very base, root level. We disagree as to the definition of morality itself. And we are rationally consistent within our own definition, the same as you may be rationally consistent with your own. But to demand the other is not rational, because they are not consistent with <B>your</B> definition will never progress this conversation. Never.<BR/><BR/>It is the same as demanding colors are defined along American terms, and then claiming the Russian is “inconsistent” for claiming light blue is a different color than dark blue. Or that the Chinese are “inconsistent” for claiming pink is a shade of red, rather than a different color than light red.<BR/><BR/>We push our morality on others by different reasons. Since “There is an objective morality” does not work on us—we do not use it on others. We use empathy, reason, aversion, social contract, and a variety of other methods to impose it on others.<BR/><BR/>Take a chapter from a common objectivist claim—that an objective moral is “we have to obey God.” (Note, for any lurkers, I am NOT claiming this is Sam’s position—I will let him state his own. This is just something I run across.) We take the situation of some of the atrocities of the Tanakh. The easiest being the Midianites of Numbers 31 or the Amalekites. We normally would say killing one-week-old babies, even in times of war, is wrong. Christians even understand the problem; otherwise they would not look for and find a variety of reasons to justify this atrocity.<BR/><BR/>One of the justifications is that an exception to the morality “You don’t kill one-week old babies” is if God orders it. Since God is always moral (so the justification goes)—if He orders it, it must be moral.<BR/><BR/>Now, under my relative, subjective morality—this is immoral. It is irrational to claim it “became” moral, simply because a human thinks a god ordered it. Yet in order to discuss with such a Christian, I must understand that, <B>by their definition</B> it is rational to claim such an action is moral. We are better off debating who has the correct definition, rather than argue who is being “rational.”<BR/><BR/><B>Sam: </B> <I> Telling somebody else, "You ought not do that," is a false statement. </I><BR/><BR/>Again, wrong. We should explode out the statements objectivists and subjectivists make:<BR/><BR/>Objectivist: [In my opinion there is <I>an objective standard</I> that claims] you ought not do that.<BR/><BR/>Subjectivist: [In my opinion there is <I>a reason</I> that claims] you ought not do that.<BR/><BR/>Notice that, in conversing, we normally drop the section within the brackets for expedience sakes, yet it is there as a basis of our conversation. Secondly, notice that the italicized section is where we disagree in our basic definition of morality. Yet in both, we are making on opinionated section.<BR/><BR/>Surely you have seen how non-theists claim Christians cannot use Mosaic law to justify homosexuality being immoral—they are doing the same thing. Saying, “You ought not do that” is a false statement <B>since those Christians define morality differently.</B> It doesn’t work on those Christians; why would we think it would work on subjectivists?<BR/><BR/>If, in my opinion, killing one-week-old babies in times of war is immoral, it is rational, consistent and correct, for me to state “You ought not do that.”<BR/><BR/><B>Sam: </B> <I> If morals are subjective, nobody else is obligated to live consistently with anybody else's sense of morality. That's the point objectivists are making.</I><BR/><BR/>You are correct. If they are subjective, no one IS obligated to live with my set of morals. Er…so what? If there are objective, no one is obligated to live with that set of morals. I would think you agree, regardless of what system is in place, people violate morals all the time. Even their own.<BR/><BR/>The question facing us both is how to determine morality and how to enforce it. I would further note the failure of objectivists to come up with a set of objective morals further impinges them more than us. If we don’t know that we are “obligated” to follow—what value is it to claim we are obligated to follow it? Here, I find the subjective realization of reality to be far more reasonable. To understand that others may NOT find the same set of colors we do, and learn how to interact with them. To understand others may not like the same ice cream flavors, and how to compensate. To understand there is no set of objective rules, and how to interact and improve our position from there.<BR/><BR/>It is perhaps a bit hyperbolic to say objectivists don’t think we can frame the words. But not that much so. <BR/><BR/><B>Sam: </B> <I>They're saying that if morals are only your subjective preference or the collective preference of your culture, then they do not apply to others. If morals are relative, it isn't wrong for somebody else to do something just because you are personally opposed to it.</I><BR/><BR/>Wow. There is a lot to unpack in that statement. Some close to our position; some not so close. What do you mean by “apply”? How are morals “applied”? The collective preference of my culture is that you do not spit on the ground in public. Would you say there is an objective moral position on that? (I doubt it, but I don’t want to put words in your mouth.) Yet by ostracizing, shunning, even passing of laws, we can enforce and “apply” this moral to others. <BR/><BR/>Further, <I>it is wrong to ME</I> for someone to do something I am personally opposed to. Yes, it may not be wrong on an <I>objective standard</I> <B>but I don’t define morals on an objective standard!</B> <BR/><BR/>Yes, under your objective standard, simple preference would not qualify as saying something is immoral because I am opposed to it, but I don’t utilize the objective standard. This is why objectivists are unable to communicate with subjectivists—they continue to insist the conversation must be couched solely in terms of the definitions of objectivists, without consideration for the definitions of subjectivists.<BR/><BR/>Like an American continuing to insist the Russian must recognize ONLY the American system of colors, and say, “Your preference of there to be two different colors between light and dark blue does not mean it must apply to others.”<BR/> <BR/>Now, if we want to converse who as the more correct definition of morality—THAT would be where the conversation should be held.<BR/><BR/>Sam, we agree on quite a bit, it just seems internet conversations are easier to point out disagreements rather than agreements.DagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-82688073104507930402009-03-08T11:37:00.000-04:002009-03-08T11:37:00.000-04:00We grew up learning colors. “Red” means stop. “Gre...<I>We grew up learning colors. “Red” means stop. “Green” means go. “Yellow” means—Don’t eat that snow!</I><BR/><BR/>LOL<BR/><BR/>I don't know if this colour analogy is all that great. In the colour scenario, you just have different cultures applying different words to what they see. Each culture has different words for what they see, and they categorize them differently, but are they really seeing something different?<BR/><BR/>I think a better analogy for subjective morality is ice cream. We both acknowledge that there's ice cream out there, just like there's rape. But maybe you like ice cream, and I don't. You think ice cream is good. I think it's bad. Same with rape. But "ice cream is good" isn't something that's really true about the ice cream so much as it's true about the person making the claim. It's just another way of saying, "I like ice cream," or "Ice cream tastes good <I>to me</I>."<BR/><BR/>So the question is What do we mean when we say "Rape is bad"? Are we merely reporting autobiography? Are we essentially saying that we don't like rape? Or are we talking about the act of rape itself? Is our statement that "Rape is bad," more like "There is ice cream," or is it more like, "Ice cream is good"?<BR/><BR/><I>One of the silliest arguments from the absolute or objective moral camp is this notion that if objective morals do not exist, we cannot impose our morality on others.</I><BR/><BR/>Well, of course anybody can push their own sense of morality on somebody else. But in the absense of objective moral values, it is not rationally correct to do so. Telling somebody else, "You ought not do that," is a false statement. If morals are subjective, nobody else is obligated to live consistently with anybody else's sense of morality. That's the point objectivists are making.<BR/><BR/><I>Or the flip side, it can be phrased, “If morals are only your opinion, you can’t say the other person did anything wrong.” Why not? While I may not preface it with “It is my opinion…” I am still amazingly able to move my lips, make sounds and grammatically state, “You are wrong.” There remains a question of enforcement, of course.</I><BR/><BR/>Good grief, Dagoods! Do you really think objectivists are denying your ability to move your lips and make the sound, "You are wrong"? Is that honestly what you think? Seriously, Dagoods, I want to know if that is honestly what you think. Nobody denies that you're capable of moving your lips to make the necessary sounds. They're saying that if morals are only your subjective preference or the collective preference of your culture, then they do not apply to others. If morals are relative, it isn't wrong for somebody else to do something just because you are personally opposed to it.<BR/><BR/><I>In this discussion I see a great deal of misunderstanding.</I><BR/><BR/>Amen to that! We finally agree on something.Sam Harperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15884738370893218595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-78687587780783182302009-03-07T07:12:00.000-05:002009-03-07T07:12:00.000-05:00Well done!Well done!Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.com